Familypedia talk:Info pages/person article template
Features on page WP ref Maybe the WP ref could have the search (as I put on the surname template) - because even if there is an article its name is unlikely to be the same. Robin Patterson 13:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC) *wpbio? actually it does not assume the same name. If unspecified, it uses the Wikipedia-en value specified on the info page. Take a look at Adela of Normandy (c1062)/info info page, and the results of the wpbio on the main article page. But you can specify a WP name as before, just ask AMK originally wrote it. *It is somewhat selfish to hard code the link that way, since only that link has the benefit of the information. If you stick it in the info page, then everyone can lookup the related en:wp article by querying the article. [[User:Phlox|'~'' Phlox']] 22:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Ahnentafel/Pedigree I think it should be required that these have their own separate subpages. -AMK152(talk • ) 05:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC) :Why? (Seems like a lot of trouble you want to put people to, to have less info about their ancestor displayed; especially if all that one wants to show is grandparents.) If you're concerned about server drain, I'm quite happy to restrict it to level "3" and tell people to create a subpage if they want more. But let's finalize our standards for subpages first! — Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Siblings I thought we agreed not to include them a long time ago since they're on the parents page? -AMK152(talk • ) 05:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC) :We may have "agreed" that; I don't remember; but some individuals would have to look up a lot of parents' pages to get all of their half-siblings. Please leave the heading. I'm not asking that we put in whatever template is needed to display automatically, though that may be easy. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Contributors The history of the article lists contributors. I don't really see a need for this, although it's listed as optional. -AMK152(talk • ) 05:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC) :It's so that other people interested in the content of the page (e.g. long-lost cousins) can see who supplied the real content and might be good to talk to. History lists every editor, even those who just changed a category or fixed the spelling. And not every visitor will even know that there is a history of contributors. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC) NOTOC I think there should be a table of contents, especially when the biography eventually breaks down into various sections. -AMK152(talk • ) 05:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC) :I agree, but I have a feeling that this is so as not to complicate things with the info material. Try it on a page with two sets of children, maybe?? — Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Change to this page I apparently made a change to this template thinking I was on another page. I'm very new and am trying to figure out how to undo the change. Please correct it if able.